A personal experience with M43 cameras changes everything. Full-frame marketers don't want that because sales are more important. For example, why should I buy an OM-5 II or the OM-3 if they have inferior image quality? It's almost normal for respected influencers to suggest that M43 cameras have inferior image quality. There are also several videos showing that the image quality of OM System's high-resolution RAW files is softer than the same 40MP or higher FF images. Why would people think OM Workspace is inferior to the commercial RAW converters from Adobe or DxO? Shouldn't the logical alternative be to convert our high-res RAW files with OM Workspace or the TruePic X image processor, especially with the more advanced PC-RAW mode of the OM-1 MKI/II and the OM-3?
The E-M5 III (OM-5) with the M.Zuiko 12-45mm f4 pro, 17mm f1.8, and 75mm f1.8 lenses is an excellent day or low-light option.
Do we need to replace the older analog exposure triangle with a digital version? Yes, we need a more accurate representation of digital cameras. The digital exposure triangle lets us manage the sensor's saturation separately from the ISO (image brightness). "Size and capture" or "ISO sensitivity" theories prevent us from considering technical aspects like saturation and SNR. Modern photographers use the digital exposure triangle and image-signal flow diagram to manage the optical and technical aspects of modern digital cameras. Analog and digital photography are technically very different.
Goto my Page Menu or open this link for the full article.
No comments:
Post a Comment